NOTES

Chapter 1. Governmental Roles in Collaborative Environmental Management

1. This vignette is derived from a larger study of NCCP in Thomas (2003b).

2. Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, 1972, 1977; Safe Drinking Water Act, 1974, 1977; Toxic Substances Control Act, 1976; Clean Air Act Amendments, 1970, 1977; Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act, 1972; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 1976; Federal Land Policy Management Act, 1976; Coastal Zone Management Act, 1972, 1975; Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, 1974; National Forest Management Act, 1976; Public Rangeland Improvement Act, 1978; Endangered Species Act, 1973, 1978 (compiled from Westman 1985, 54, 60, 66–67, 77).

3. In this discussion, “outcomes” refers to both “policy outcomes” and “policy outputs,” as these terms are commonly used in the public policy literature.

4. Of course, this challenge is not limited to collaborative environmental management; the outcomes of traditional command-and-control policies are often difficult to assess and thus have been measured by proxy. See, e.g., Kettl (1983).

Chapter 3. Nonprofit Facilitation: The Darby Partnership

1. Early on, the partnership attendees tended to be senior staff of their organizations; later, field staff were often sent as delegates. TNC explains that this change was appropriate to have “on-the-ground leadership discover problems and create strategies” (TNC 1996a, 11) after the initial groundwork was laid by senior staff.

2. Indeed, the informal nature of the partnership sometimes caused confusion about its status as a public or private organization. Although meetings were open to anyone who had an interest in the Darby, lay citizens and members of the press seldom were present. When a reporter attended one contentious meeting in which the wildlife refuge was to be discussed, the facilitator tried to discourage him from taking pictures or making recordings. But then a local government official pointed out that the meeting was subject to the Sunshine Laws because some partners were there in an official capacity, and the reporter was allowed to continue.

3. Since 1991, TNC has had two to four staff members primarily devoted to its Darby-related activities, including the Darby bioreserve project director, a river steward, and a part-time administrative assistant. In addition, during the HUA program, TNC and the United States Department of Agriculture split the cost of an agricultural coordinator, and in 1997 TNC also hired an urban coordinator. Although these staff members do not work for the partnership, they help support it by organizing and facilitating meetings, gathering and presenting relevant information, and participating in joint projects with other partners.

4. This may reflect some response bias, since those who were available for interviews, came to meetings, and responded to the survey were more likely to be positively disposed toward the partnership. Because of this tendency, it may be easier to document the successes and positive views of ecosystem management institutions than failures and negative views (Griffin 1999). Nonetheless, key informants cited many positive outcomes.

Chapter 4. Encouragement through “Carrots” and “Sticks”: Habitat Conservation Planning and the Endangered Species Act

1. Under the ESA, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has regulatory authority over marine species. NMFS is relegated to citations and footnotes in this chapter because most habitat conservation plans are land based.

2. Sections 9(a)(1) and 3(18), Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The Section 9 prohibition on take applies only to fish and wildlife species listed by the FWS as endangered (i.e., at imminent risk of extinction). It does not apply directly to plant species, or to species listed as threatened (i.e., likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future). Yet Section 9 does cover plant species indirectly because plants (such as old-growth forests) provide habitat for wildlife (such as spotted owls).

3. Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995).

4. Section 4 authorizes the FWS to list a species either as endangered, if it is at imminent risk of extinction, or as threatened, if it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.

5. For example, The Nature Conservancy played a formal role in planning and implementing the second HCP, in the Coachella Valley near Palm Springs, California. It acquired and managed most of the designated preserve land in the HCP, using mitigation fees that developers paid to local governments. It later divested itself of these responsibilities by turning them over to a local nonprofit organization, the Center for Natural Lands Management.

Chapter 5. Encouragement through Grants: Ohio's Farmland Preservation Task Forces

1. Members of task forces on the low end of the spending scale indicated that they had received more money than they could figure out how to spend in developing their farmland preservation plans. Those on the high end obtained additional resources above the required 1:1 match.

Chapter 6. Science-Based Collaborative Management: The Albemarle–Pamlico Estuarine Study

1. At the time, the agency was called the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (DNRCD). It has been renamed several times since then. For the sake of clarity, the current name of the agency—Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)—is used throughout this chapter.

2. This ceremony occurred the day after state elections put a majority of Republicans in the North Carolina House of Representatives for the first time in decades. Many predicted this would make it more difficult to get APES-related legislation or appropriations approved by the legislature. This political shift made even the most optimistic participants acknowledge that the CCMP would not be immediately implemented in its entirety.

Chapter 7. Government-Led Community Collaboration: The Animas River Stakeholder Group

1. The Clean Water Act is the common name for a group of statutes and amendments. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act was passed in 1972, and the Clean Water Act in 1977. Both acts, with subsequent amendments in 1981, 1987, and 1993, together are referred to as the Clean Water Act.

2. Under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, states, territories, and tribes can receive grants to support a wide variety of activities, including technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring to assist the success of specific nonpoint-source implementation projects.

Chapter 8. Government as Actor and as Institution

1. As described in Chapter 1, we use the term “environmental outcomes” to include both environmental conditions on the ground and environmental management tools such as plans, and the term “social outcomes” to denote the enhancement of the capacity for individuals to work together to address their concerns.